WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1706/97 by Hiltrud BREYER to the Commission. Nuclear waste transport accident in Apach, Lorraine
Date: 1997-05-23
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: Lorraine, container, cross-border transport, radiation protection, radioactive waste, radioactivity, rail transport, transport accident, transport of dangerous goods, transport safety

22. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 21/85

It is impossible to give the cost of each individual delegation since the relevant appropriations are entered in
chapter A6 of the Commission(cid:146)s budget, where spending is broken down by item.

Pre-1988, cost breakdowns were spread over the whole budget and cannot therefore now be isolated. Since 1990,
the costs have been entered under chapter A6; they totalled ECU 112 million in 1990 and ECU 191 million in
1995. The increase was due largely to the opening of new Commission delegations in eastern Europe.

(1)  OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 230.

(98/C 21/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1706/97

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(23 May 1997)

Subject: Nuclear waste transport accident in Apach, Lorraine

At  around  6.30  a.m.  on  Monday,  4  February  1997,  a  train  carrying  nuclear  waste  from  North  Germany  was
derailed between Perl (D) and Apach (F) in France, near the Luxembourg border. As the Commission has not
answered most of the questions in my Question P-0528/97 (1), I find myself compelled to repeat them:

1. What  emergency  plans  had  been  drawn  up?  What  measures  do  these  prescribe  in  the  event  of  an
emergency? What evacuation plans exist for emergencies of this kind?

At the time of the accident the train was travelling at 28 kph; up to what speed would the safety of the

2.
Excellox 6 containers have been assured?

As there would have been a catastrophe if the train had collided with a passenger train, why was the train(cid:146)s

3.
route not closed to passenger trains?

4. What were the reasons for the train(cid:146)s circuitous route via this region where three countries meet? Why was
the most direct route › via Belgium and the Netherlands › not selected?

5. Was the load-bearing capacity of the line checked and the maximum speed prescribed?

6. What were the levels of neutron irradiation and radiation exposure received by the rescue teams?

(1)  OJ C 319, 18.10.1997, p. 101.

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 1997)

The emergency plans fall within the powers of the national authorities. In this instance the necessary action

1.
was taken under the authority of the prefect.

2.
The engineering performance criteria to be met by the containers have been set out by the International
Atomic Energy Agency in the regulation on the carriage of radioactive materials, 1985 version, as amended in
1990 (safety collection No 6). The Excellox 6 containers must meet those criteria.

At the time of the accident the train was not travelling on a major line but was in an area set aside for

3.
shunting.

4. Matters concerning physical protection prompt the Member States, who alone are competent in this area, to
lay down the route to be followed by trains.

5. and 6.
question E-1561/97 (1) by Mr Ben Fayot.

The  Commission  would  invite  the  Honourable  Member  to  refer  to  the  answer  given  to  written

(1)  See page 71.